Casuistic formulation
In one of your articles, you convincingly showed that the Sages used casuistic formulation.
And you mentioned:
“Why do the Sages really prefer a casuistic formulation, and not use the formulation of theoretical laws (like the positivist method)? I cannot address this important question here, and for my purposes here it is sufficient for me to state the fact that this is indeed the way of the Sages.”
Have you gone back and written somewhere about the reason for the casuistic formulation? Could you please write the gist of things here?
Thank you very much and Happy Holidays!
P.S.
Personally I am inclined to say that this way is preferable because it is more precise. Sometimes the general law cannot be formulated unless it is precisely violated. But I am not sure about that.
I don’t remember if I wrote that. In principle, the Sages don’t have much faith in rules. Even when there is a rule, they don’t shy away from exceptions (see Kiddushin: They should not make generalizations even where an exception is stated, and much more). It is more credible in their eyes to show a case in which the rule is expressed and leave it to us to understand the application. The rule is too rigid and does not allow for the flexibility that reality requires.
By the way, I think this is also the starting point of the Common Law.
Thank you! Indeed, along the lines of what I was thinking. If you find a place where you wrote about the subject at length – I would be happy to refer you.
Now uploaded. See here: https://mikyab.net/posts/76538
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
